I desire to profit from my work. I do not desire others not to profit from their work. In combination it feels like it amplifies less than ideally.
Take two companies that both produce the same part. If Part1 is sold by CompanyA and CompanyB, and someone only needs 1 Part1 how should Golden Rule be brought into consideration?
There is a buyer, customer, call them CustomerC.
There are employees that work for CompanyA call them WorkforceA.
There are employees that work for CompanyB call them WorkforceB
“You made a choice, you just didn’t make it the way Christ would make it” WWJD from someone that never Judges? We’ll call it assessment?
Golden Rule could lead to more than one choice that is reasonable.
CustomerC has enough money to buy more than one Part1, thus they should be required to buy 2 Part1s from CompanyA and 2 Part1s from CompanyB. That is ideal value and inventory established for Part2, Companies that deliver Part2? That is an ideal requirement and burden to place on the shoulders of CustomerC?
CustomerC buys Part1 from CompanyB. WorkforceB profits. It is a win win win. It is also a win win win loss. Since it is sinful, unwise to Judge others, better to assess as a win, helps progress – defended and given grace beats less than ideal burdens and requirements also factors into Golden Rule.
CustomerC buys Part1 from CompanyA. WorkforceA profits. It is a win win win. It is also a win win win loss. Since it is sinful, unwise to Judge others, better to assess as a win, helps progress – defended and given grace beats less than ideal burdens and requirements also factors into Golden Rule.
Set to ideal ground established for all based upon Golden Rule? Claims of ideal ground established might not be all mercy and grace for other parties. Other parties that might be stuck unfairly in jails and prisons, or similar less than ideal oppression out situations.
Maybe CustomerC should take their money and give to the poor instead of buying Part1. Part1 available for purchase is ideal or not ideal for all parties? Golden Rule limit accessibility, don’t limit accessibility of purchase?
Part1 might have defects, two Part1 might equal capacity to replace. Artificially inflate two work forces? Fault tolerance included by default might lead to less-than-ideal refinement of product lines.
Golden Rule claimed might lead to thought deterministic is more likely. Given multiple routes might be argued seems that it should be appreciated as non-deterministic. Thought of deterministic might be equated to can judge, have more sufficient capacity, perception, and comprehension to sufficiently judge others actions, qualities, and choices. Known as less deterministic might be perceived as a different valuation of power and is thus not always amplified? Act in a deterministic way all value added for other parties, parties that might need to be reminded in problems with judgment and expectation? Turning up predictable is less than desirable, factors into Golden Rule?
Depends matters. People too predictable might lead to Evil able to utilize them in non-ideal ways. Parts to less predictable might lead to reliance that delivers insufficiently. I can depend on that is a value-added system, less than an ideal value-added system. Works like clockwork free of temptation? Unreliable systems free of temptation? Woe to the tempters seems less than ideal as there is temptation in both. Lights on the streets might inspire thoughts of throwing rocks, knocking them out as a way to fight an oppressive system does not equate to I want companies of light bulbs, taxpayers woed for adding temptation to the public. No light on a dark street, free of temptation? Woed for less-than-ideal reliability not possible? Can’t see the stars a price put on others for protection from crime?
My Tech Blog 